Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
COP 1903.226 electrolyzer (was: The clash between ego and stupidity -- the 9th grader test)
2 views
Skip to first unread message
gaby de wilde
Dec 1, 2011, 3:36:52 PM12/1/11
to
On Nov 29, 7:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a simple test that you can do to see if you have an intolerable
> clash between ego and stupidity.
hello my good friend PD!
ghee, what a long post for some one who doesn't read other peoples
posts.
> If you believe that there is something wrong with physics today, then
> dive into exactly what you think that is that's wrong.
Oh the temptation!
What angle to chose!
You got me here!
[snip 1000 examples for readability]
> If you believe that things like quantum tunneling, length contraction,
> the expansion of the universe, and zero mass and zero volume objects are
> anathema and are complete nonsense,
the onion of proofs is upon the kook.
Where does god come from?
What does the universe expand into?
You also want to keep the kooky pulling gravity?
Self contradiction doesn't bother the group think at all.
> then the treatment for this is to
> refer to experimental tests of those claims.
The onion of proofs is upon the kook.
I define complete nonsense as: "something that will never serve any
useful purpose"
When something has a smaller chance to be useful than LSD it is a
nonsense.
I know you was hoping for something mathematical. Sorry about that.
When can I feed my 26 starving children with the results of this
theoretical LSD trip?
Right, I didn't think so
> If you believe that any
> experimental result can be positioned to defend any theory whatsoever,
> so that experiment does not serve to elevate a theory among its
> competitors, then you have failed to grasp the basics of the scientific
> method, which is something that most 9th graders understand.
If you however learn to position negative results favorably you have a
better understanding of physics than most professors.
> If you believe that things like conservation of energy,
Silly assumption, requires imaginary closed systems -> imaginary
reality
1) Could not reach ground state experimentally
2) Lied about it by calling the failed attempt the zero point
3) Created a new kind of energy to patch the junk science
But most of all it creates stupid physicists who are intentionally
ignorant about the very thing humanity needs.
1) Those stupid physicists never investigated any claim that would
refute their assumption.
2) Those stupid physicists claim they falsified all of those claims.
Self contradiction doesn't bother the group think at all.
Just repeat it often enough and it becomes true kind of logic.
> the meaning of momentum,
It does have meaning, it just isn't what you think it is.
> and the physical significance of negative numbers are anathema
I believe I was the author of that one!
You cant proof negative quanta exist!
You cant proof negative quality exist!
you cant create a product out of 2 things that do not exist!
Furthermore, then the idea that -2 baskets with -2 apples each equals
4 apples clearly shows you are insane PD.
I suggest a confession for proofs you have non. I'm sure you can find
a priest in your local church of physics.
> and are the result of brainwashing by an educational system,
Other dumb people PD, other dumb people.
> then the
> treatment of this is to return to the 9th grade.
The only solution is to abandon skools all together and study life
experimentally.
> In this environment, you will be confronted with the observation that
> most of your fellow ninth-graders seem to understand this stuff just
> fine, and they know how to apply it.
Nice self classification you pull out of your hat there skool boy :)
> At this point, you can always
> choose to believe that the reason you are different is not that you are
> being stupid, but that everyone else is being stupid.
EXACTLY!
My compliments you finally figured it out.
Of course such knowledge in your hands wouldn't lead to anything.
It kind of defeats the purpose for you to learn new things.
You have no appreciation for how stupid humans are.
> The moment you do
> this, this is a sign that your ego has run amok and that you need some
> medical attention.
Of course arrogance doesn't look as good on everyone as it does on me.
notes:
Energy effectiveness of water electrolysis process according to the
oscillograph readings (Wх100/P’),
% 190322.6
http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html
I'm not worried, when the dogma dies with the old people all will be
cool.
As a wise man ones said
Thanks for all the laughs,
-Gaby de Wilde
_____
http://go-here.nl/
> Here's a simple test that you can do to see if you have an intolerable
> clash between ego and stupidity.
hello my good friend PD!
ghee, what a long post for some one who doesn't read other peoples
posts.
> If you believe that there is something wrong with physics today, then
> dive into exactly what you think that is that's wrong.
Oh the temptation!
What angle to chose!
You got me here!
[snip 1000 examples for readability]
> If you believe that things like quantum tunneling, length contraction,
> the expansion of the universe, and zero mass and zero volume objects are
> anathema and are complete nonsense,
the onion of proofs is upon the kook.
Where does god come from?
What does the universe expand into?
You also want to keep the kooky pulling gravity?
Self contradiction doesn't bother the group think at all.
> then the treatment for this is to
> refer to experimental tests of those claims.
The onion of proofs is upon the kook.
I define complete nonsense as: "something that will never serve any
useful purpose"
When something has a smaller chance to be useful than LSD it is a
nonsense.
I know you was hoping for something mathematical. Sorry about that.
When can I feed my 26 starving children with the results of this
theoretical LSD trip?
Right, I didn't think so
> If you believe that any
> experimental result can be positioned to defend any theory whatsoever,
> so that experiment does not serve to elevate a theory among its
> competitors, then you have failed to grasp the basics of the scientific
> method, which is something that most 9th graders understand.
If you however learn to position negative results favorably you have a
better understanding of physics than most professors.
> If you believe that things like conservation of energy,
Silly assumption, requires imaginary closed systems -> imaginary
reality
1) Could not reach ground state experimentally
2) Lied about it by calling the failed attempt the zero point
3) Created a new kind of energy to patch the junk science
But most of all it creates stupid physicists who are intentionally
ignorant about the very thing humanity needs.
1) Those stupid physicists never investigated any claim that would
refute their assumption.
2) Those stupid physicists claim they falsified all of those claims.
Self contradiction doesn't bother the group think at all.
Just repeat it often enough and it becomes true kind of logic.
> the meaning of momentum,
It does have meaning, it just isn't what you think it is.
> and the physical significance of negative numbers are anathema
I believe I was the author of that one!
You cant proof negative quanta exist!
You cant proof negative quality exist!
you cant create a product out of 2 things that do not exist!
Furthermore, then the idea that -2 baskets with -2 apples each equals
4 apples clearly shows you are insane PD.
I suggest a confession for proofs you have non. I'm sure you can find
a priest in your local church of physics.
> and are the result of brainwashing by an educational system,
Other dumb people PD, other dumb people.
> then the
> treatment of this is to return to the 9th grade.
The only solution is to abandon skools all together and study life
experimentally.
> In this environment, you will be confronted with the observation that
> most of your fellow ninth-graders seem to understand this stuff just
> fine, and they know how to apply it.
Nice self classification you pull out of your hat there skool boy :)
> At this point, you can always
> choose to believe that the reason you are different is not that you are
> being stupid, but that everyone else is being stupid.
EXACTLY!
My compliments you finally figured it out.
Of course such knowledge in your hands wouldn't lead to anything.
It kind of defeats the purpose for you to learn new things.
You have no appreciation for how stupid humans are.
> The moment you do
> this, this is a sign that your ego has run amok and that you need some
> medical attention.
Of course arrogance doesn't look as good on everyone as it does on me.
notes:
Energy effectiveness of water electrolysis process according to the
oscillograph readings (Wх100/P’),
% 190322.6
http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html
I'm not worried, when the dogma dies with the old people all will be
cool.
As a wise man ones said
Thanks for all the laughs,
-Gaby de Wilde
_____
http://go-here.nl/
Don Lancaster
Dec 2, 2011, 5:11:15 PM12/2/11
to
On 12/1/2011 1:36 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
< deleted bunch of total bullshit owing to utterly incompetent
electrolysis measurements ... >
There is a fundamental thermodynamic reason why electrolysis from high
value sources ( such as grid, pv, or alternator ) for hydrogen energy
production flat out ain't gonna happen.
The principle of "exergy" ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES that a kilowatt hour of
electricity is worth ridiculously more than a kilowatt hour of unstored
hydrogen gas.
The process (at best) is pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US
Dollars for Mexican pesos.
Before amortization, of course.
Much more at < http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.asp >
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
< deleted bunch of total bullshit owing to utterly incompetent
electrolysis measurements ... >
There is a fundamental thermodynamic reason why electrolysis from high
value sources ( such as grid, pv, or alternator ) for hydrogen energy
production flat out ain't gonna happen.
The principle of "exergy" ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES that a kilowatt hour of
electricity is worth ridiculously more than a kilowatt hour of unstored
hydrogen gas.
The process (at best) is pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US
Dollars for Mexican pesos.
Before amortization, of course.
Much more at < http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.asp >
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Androcles
Dec 2, 2011, 5:45:03 PM12/2/11
to
"Don Lancaster" <d...@tinaja.com> wrote in message
news:9jt0o4...@mid.individual.net...
| On 12/1/2011 1:36 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
|
| < deleted bunch of total bullshit owing to utterly incompetent
| electrolysis measurements ... >
|
|
|
| There is a fundamental thermodynamic reason why electrolysis from high
| value sources ( such as grid, pv, or alternator ) for hydrogen energy
| production flat out ain't gonna happen.
|
| The principle of "exergy" ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES that a kilowatt hour of
| electricity is worth ridiculously more than a kilowatt hour of unstored
| hydrogen gas.
|
| The process (at best) is pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US
| Dollars for Mexican pesos.
|
| Before amortization, of course.
|
| Much more at < http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.asp >
|
You'll need to modify that 100 watt light bulb for ten hours, the next
|
| < deleted bunch of total bullshit owing to utterly incompetent
| electrolysis measurements ... >
|
|
|
| There is a fundamental thermodynamic reason why electrolysis from high
| value sources ( such as grid, pv, or alternator ) for hydrogen energy
| production flat out ain't gonna happen.
|
| The principle of "exergy" ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEES that a kilowatt hour of
| electricity is worth ridiculously more than a kilowatt hour of unstored
| hydrogen gas.
|
| The process (at best) is pretty much the same as 1:1 exchanging US
| Dollars for Mexican pesos.
|
| Before amortization, of course.
|
| Much more at < http://www.tinaja.com/etsamp1.asp >
|
generation won't know what that is. I suggest an 800 watt
microwave oven for 7.5 minutes, just enough for a frozen
TV dinner.
TEMPERATURE SCALES -- need to add the pressure caveat. Water
boils at a lower temperature with altitude, LPG liquefies at room
temperature when under pressure.
Feedstock?
http://www.americanmachinetools.com/images/diagram-lathe.jpg
It's got a headstock, a tailstock, a feed rod, but no feedstock.
I'm not an American dirt farmer, what's a feedstock?
Corn ethanol? That's whiskey, ain't it?
I give up, this shit is for hillbillies.
Don Lancaster
Dec 2, 2011, 7:39:57 PM12/2/11
to
Androcles
Dec 2, 2011, 7:45:23 PM12/2/11
to
news:9jt9et...@mid.individual.net...
1) A hillbilly might understand.
2) A mechanic's apprentice will not.
I suggest that your explanation of energy be more generic and less
targeted toward the audience you know best.
2) A mechanic's apprentice will not.
I suggest that your explanation of energy be more generic and less
targeted toward the audience you know best.
Bill Snyder
Dec 2, 2011, 8:27:04 PM12/2/11
to
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 00:45:23 -0000, "Androcles"
In my country, we have developed marvelous devices called
"dictionaries" and "encyclopedias."
"Raw material required for an industrial process."
American Heritage Dictionary
"raw material supplied to a machine or processing plant"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
"A raw material or feedstock is the basic material from which a
product is manufactured or made"
Wikipedia
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
"dictionaries" and "encyclopedias."
"Raw material required for an industrial process."
American Heritage Dictionary
"raw material supplied to a machine or processing plant"
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
"A raw material or feedstock is the basic material from which a
product is manufactured or made"
Wikipedia
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Don Lancaster
Dec 2, 2011, 10:53:05 PM12/2/11
to
Wikipedia or in any of the above dictionaries
Androcles
Dec 2, 2011, 11:32:58 PM12/2/11
to
"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:3cuid7lfl32aa8ihb...@4ax.com...
First Known Use of FEEDSTOCK 1932
In my country we speak English. This is probably because I live
in England, not in a rebellious former colony where a bastardized
form of the language is colloquial.
Your own dictionary defines "colloquial" as
: used in or characteristic of familiar and informal conversation; also :
unacceptably informal
I was merely indicating the unacceptably informal nature of the term
"feedstock" as it applies to a treatise on energy.
Definition of TREATISE
: a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical
discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached
First Known Use: 14th century
I suspect you may have consumed too much corn ethanol.
Don Lancaster
Dec 3, 2011, 10:12:46 AM12/3/11
to
Androcles
Dec 3, 2011, 10:38:22 AM12/3/11
to
gaby de wilde
Dec 3, 2011, 9:01:17 PM12/3/11
to
On 12/1/2011 1:36 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
Energy effectiveness of water electrolysis process according to the
oscillograph readings (Wх100/P’),
% 190322.6
http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html
I'm not worried, when the dogma dies with the old people all will be
cool.
On Dec 2, 11:11 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
oscillograph readings (Wх100/P’),
% 190322.6
http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/index.html
I'm not worried, when the dogma dies with the old people all will be
cool.
:> There is a fundamental thermodynamic reason why electrolysis from
high
:> value sources ( such as grid, pv, or alternator ) for hydrogen
energy
:> production flat out ain't gonna happen.
o hey hello!
:> value sources ( such as grid, pv, or alternator ) for hydrogen
energy
:> production flat out ain't gonna happen.
I'm sorry but you and your kind just ignored all the experiments that
refuted the theory.
In the very~same sentence you show us the depth of overall
investigation.
There was no investigation, not now, not back in the days.
The claims are simply to exotic, even for people who aren't old and
those who don't consider everything that can be invented to have been
invented already.
I mean, look at it? Look how you just got rid of the grandiose
disclosure. Arguments free from all science.
Fascinating,
Don Lancaster
Dec 4, 2011, 4:33:09 PM12/4/11
to
gaby de wilde
Dec 4, 2011, 6:04:26 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 4, 10:33 pm, Don Lancaster <d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
> On 12/3/2011 7:01 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/1/2011 1:36 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
>
> > Energy effectiveness of water electrolysis process according to the
> > oscillograph readings (Wх100/P’),
>
> > % 190322.6
>
> >http://guns.connect.fi/innoplaza/energy/story/Kanarev/electrolysis/in...
> On 12/3/2011 7:01 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/1/2011 1:36 PM, gaby de wilde wrote:
>
> > Energy effectiveness of water electrolysis process according to the
> > oscillograph readings (Wх100/P’),
>
> > % 190322.6
>
>
> > I'm not worried, when the dogma dies with the old people all will be
> > cool.
>
> > On Dec 2, 11:11 pm, Don Lancaster<d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
> > :> There is a fundamental thermodynamic reason why electrolysis from
> > high
> > :> value sources ( such as grid, pv, or alternator ) for hydrogen
> > energy
> > :> production flat out ain't gonna happen.
>
> > o hey hello!
>
> > I'm sorry but you and your kind just ignored all the experiments that
> > refuted the theory.
>
> > In the very~same sentence you show us the depth of overall
> > investigation.
>
> > There was no investigation, not now, not back in the days.
>
> > The claims are simply to exotic, even for people who aren't old and
> > those who don't consider everything that can be invented to have been
> > invented already.
>
> > I mean, look at it? Look how you just got rid of the grandiose
> > disclosure. Arguments free from all science.
>
> > Fascinating,
>
> Sigh.
>
ha ha ha
> > I'm not worried, when the dogma dies with the old people all will be
> > cool.
>
> > On Dec 2, 11:11 pm, Don Lancaster<d...@tinaja.com> wrote:
> > :> There is a fundamental thermodynamic reason why electrolysis from
> > high
> > :> value sources ( such as grid, pv, or alternator ) for hydrogen
> > energy
> > :> production flat out ain't gonna happen.
>
> > o hey hello!
>
> > I'm sorry but you and your kind just ignored all the experiments that
> > refuted the theory.
>
> > In the very~same sentence you show us the depth of overall
> > investigation.
>
> > There was no investigation, not now, not back in the days.
>
> > The claims are simply to exotic, even for people who aren't old and
> > those who don't consider everything that can be invented to have been
> > invented already.
>
> > I mean, look at it? Look how you just got rid of the grandiose
> > disclosure. Arguments free from all science.
>
> > Fascinating,
>
> Sigh.
>
> See <http://www.tinaja.com/glib/bashpseu.pdf>
From the Lancaster bible of pseudoskepticism:
"The scientific method works. In which you propose a falsifiable
theory, test that theory, then invite others to independently attack
it."
Wonderful.
At least with just double blindly attacking the futuristic science you
are at the cutting edge of pseudoskepticism, way ahead of those who
just wish it go away, cover their eyes and drown out audible noise by
chanting the mantras of pseudoskepticism.
I bet the lesser pseudoskeptics really look up to you for knee jerking
things they don't want to know exist. Of course such cult doesn't
become a religion until truth in physics is decided by committee.
After that you can have all the Jesus you want.
"Giving vastly more credibility to a Keelynet file or an anonymous
newsgroup post than a mainstream textbook or a properly peer reviewed
article in a respected scientific journal."
Ah but there the link is clearly missing. The reader wonders: What is
this illusive Keelynet Don Lancaster speaks of? Why doesn't he provide
a link? Is he trying to make the website look more credible than it
is? Is there something he doesn't want us to see?
No links back either, but that is because you never deliver the well
researched response that contains anything of research value or any
other value. Then say:
"An hour in the library is worth a month in the lab. Science and
engineering progress by building upon the collective results of what
has gone before."
It has me wonder if you wrote that from memory or copied it from some
book out of one of those libraries you talk of. Assuming those really
exist.
With warm regrets, hehehe
-Gaby de Wilde
___
http://go-here.nl
0 new messages